Document Open Access Logo

Sense of Direction: One or Two Dimensions?

Authors Clare Davies, Lucy Athersuch, Nikki Amos

PDF

File

Thumbnail PDF
PDF
LIPIcs.COSIT.2017.9.pdf
  • Filesize: 0.5 MB
  • 13 pages

Document Identifiers

Subject Classification

Keywords
  • sense of direction
  • spatial ability
  • cognitive mapping

Metrics

  • Access Statistics
  • Total Accesses (updated on a weekly basis)
    0
    PDF Downloads
    0
    Metadata Views

Abstract

The Santa Barbara Sense of Direction scale (SBSOD) has been an invaluable research tool for over 15 years. Previous studies with non-US populations, despite supporting the scale's internal validity, suggested national differences in individual item responses and possibly the factor analytic structure, although translation differences were confounded with cultural and environmental factors. Using a pooled British sample (N=151) - avoiding linguistic translation, yet reflecting 'old world' environmental experience and strategies - this paper revisits the SBSOD's validity and structure. While largely supporting the scale's internal validity across cultures and spatial environments, findings from this population suggest at least a two-factor structure underlying the scores, with the first factor explaining less than half of its variance, supporting the oft-discussed division between survey- and route-oriented strategies. We conclude by proposing a more nuanced, efficiency-based theory of 'sense of direction'.

Cite As Get BibTex

Clare Davies, Lucy Athersuch, and Nikki Amos. Sense of Direction: One or Two Dimensions?. In 13th International Conference on Spatial Information Theory (COSIT 2017). Leibniz International Proceedings in Informatics (LIPIcs), Volume 86, pp. 9:1-9:13, Schloss Dagstuhl – Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik (2017) https://doi.org/10.4230/LIPIcs.COSIT.2017.9

Author Details

Clare Davies
Lucy Athersuch
Nikki Amos

References

  1. Andrej Bicanski and Neil Burgess. Environmental anchoring of head direction in a computational model of retrosplenial cortex. Journal of Neuroscience, 36(46):11601-11618, 2016. Google Scholar
  2. Anke Brock, Philippe Truillet, Bernard Oriola, Delphine Picard, and Christophe Jouffrais. Interactivity improves usability of geographic maps for visually impaired people. Human-Computer Interaction, 30(2):156-194, 2015. Google Scholar
  3. Heather Burte and Mary Hegarty. Revisiting the relationship between allocentric-heading recall and self-reported sense of direction. In Proceedings of the 34th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, pages 162-167. Cognitive Science Society, 2012. Google Scholar
  4. John B. Carroll. Human Cognitive Abilities: A survey of factor-analytic studies. Cambridge University Press, 1993. Google Scholar
  5. Clare Davies and Eric Pederson. Grid patterns and cultural expectations in urban wayfinding. In Daniel R. Montello, editor, Spatial Information Theory: COSIT 2001, pages 400-414. Springer, 2001. Google Scholar
  6. Julie R. Dumont and Jeffrey S. Tauber. The neural correlates of navigation beyond the hippocampus. In Shane O'Mara and Marian Tsanov, editors, Progress in Brain Research: The Connected Hippocampus, volume 219, pages 83-102. Elsevier, 2015. Google Scholar
  7. Russell A. Epstein and Lindsay K. Vass. Neural systems for landmark-based wayfinding in humans. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 369, 2014. Google Scholar
  8. Amanda M. Ferguson, Erin A. Maloney, Jonathan Fugelsang, and Evan F. Risko. On the relation between math and spatial ability: The case of math anxiety. Learning and Individual Differences, 39:1-12, 2015. Google Scholar
  9. Mark A. Halko, Erin C. Connors, Jaime Sanchez, and Lotfi B. Merabet. Real world navigation independence in the early blind correlates with differential brain activity associated with virtual navigation. Human Brain Mapping, 35(6):2768-2778, 2014. Google Scholar
  10. Mary Hegarty, Daniel R. Montello, Anthony E. Richardson, Toru Ishikawa, and Kristin Lovelace. Spatial abilities at different scales: Individual differences in aptitude-test performance and spatial-layout learning. Intelligence, 34:151-176, 2006. Google Scholar
  11. Mary Hegarty, Anthony E. Richardson, Daniel R. Montello, Kristin Lovelace, and Ilavanil Subbiah. Development of a self-report measure of environmental spatial ability. Intelligence, 30:425-447, 2002. URL: http://www.earthgate.ucsb.edu/~montello/pubs/sbsod.pdf.
  12. Christoph Hölscher, Tobias Meilinger, Georg Vrachliotis, Martin Brösamle, and Markus Knauff. Up the down staircase: Wayfinding strategies in multi-level buildings. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 26:284-299, 2006. Google Scholar
  13. Toru Ishikawa and Daniel R. Montello. Spatial knowledge acquisition from direct experience in the environment: Individual differences in the development of metric knowledge and the integration of separately learned places. Cognitive Psychology, 52:93-129, 2006. Google Scholar
  14. Kashka Iwanowska and Daniel Voyer. Dimensional transformation in tests of spatial and environmental cognition. Memory &Cognition, 41(8):1122-1131, 2013. Google Scholar
  15. Tobias Meilinger. Strategies of Orientation in Environmental Spaces, volume 22 of MPI Series in Biological Cybernetics. Max-Planck-Gesellschaft, 2008. Google Scholar
  16. Daniel R. Montello. Scale and multiple psychologies of space. In Andrew U. Frank and I. Campari, editors, Spatial Information Theory: a theoretical basis for GIS, pages 312-321. Springer-Verlag, 1993. Google Scholar
  17. Daniel R. Montello and Danqing Xiao. Linguistic and cultural universality of the concept of sense-of-direction. In Max Egenhofer, Nicholas Giudice, Reinhard Moratz, and Michael Worboys, editors, Spatial Information Theory: COSIT 2011, pages 264-282. Springer-Verlag, 2011. Google Scholar
  18. Stefan Münzer, Benedict C. O. F. Fehringer, and Tim Kühl. Validation of a 3-factor structure of spatial strategies and relations to possession and usage of navigational aids. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 47:66-78, 2016. Google Scholar
  19. Stefan Münzer and Christoph Hölscher. Entwicklung und Validierung eines Fragebogens zu räumlichen Strategien (Development and validation of a self-report measure of environmental spatial strategies). Diagnostica, 57:111-125, 2011. Google Scholar
  20. Francesca Pazzaglia and Rossana De Beni. Strategies of processing spatial information in survey and landmark-centred individuals. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 13(4):493-508, 2001. Google Scholar
  21. Thomas Pingel and Keith Clarke. Perceptually shaded slope maps for the visualization of digital surface models. Cartographica, 49(4):225-240, 2014. Google Scholar
  22. Alexander W. Siegel and Sheldon H. White. The development of spatial representations of large-scale environments. Advances in Child Development and Behavior, 10:9-55, 1975. Google Scholar
  23. Joost Wegman, Hubert M. Fonteijn, Janneke van Ekert, Anna Tyborowska, Clemens Jansen, and Gabriele Janzen. Gray and white matter correlates of navigational ability in humans. Human Brain Mapping, 35:2561-2572, 2014. Google Scholar
  24. Steven M. Weisberg, Victor R. Schinazi, Nora S. Newcombe, Thomas F. Shipley, and Russell A. Epstein. Variations in cognitive maps: Understanding individual differences in navigation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 40(3):669-682, 2014. Google Scholar
  25. Thomas Wolbers and Mary Hegarty. What determines our navigational abilities? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 14(3):138-146, 2010. Google Scholar
  26. Thomas Wolbers and Jan M. Wiener. Challenges for identifying the neural mechanisms that support spatial navigation: the impact of spatial scale. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 8:571, 2014. Google Scholar
  27. Jimmy Y. Zhong and Maria Kozhevnikov. Relating allocentric and egocentric survey-based representations to the self-reported use of a navigation strategy of egocentric spatial updating. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 46:154-175, 2016. Google Scholar
Questions / Remarks / Feedback
X

Feedback for Dagstuhl Publishing


Thanks for your feedback!

Feedback submitted

Could not send message

Please try again later or send an E-mail
© 2023-2025 Schloss Dagstuhl – LZI GmbH About DROPS Imprint Privacy Contact